2

Human Development in Andhra Pradesh

2.1 Introduction
he accepted notion of what constitutes economic development has undergone a paradigm shift in recent times. The concept of development has been extended to be more comprehensive and go beyond the mere material dimension of increase in per capita income, complemented by the non-material dimension (like levels of education, status of health and access to basic amenities). Thus development, apart from income, relates to general well-being and economic capabilities of the people. Sen (1999) says that besides income and wealth we have reason to value many things which ensure real choices and opportunities to lead the kind of life we would value living. It is argued that development should facilitate every human being to live, as she/he likes: expanding the potential capabilities1 of every human being2 (HDR, 1990). After consistent debates and discussions, this development approach has been converging with the notion of human development3 .

There has been a significant improvement in the human development in the state. However, its relative ranking among the major states has always been in the middle. The levels of human development across the districts vary significantly. A welcome feature of the trends between the last two decades is the convergence of human development across districts.

1 However, the capabilities approach goes far beyond individual attributes to analyze the role of the social environment on human choice and agency (Ranis, 2004). 2 Sen (1999) says that development is a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. Therefore, development can be seen in terms of expansion of the real freedoms where the expansion of human capability can be seen as the central feature of the process of development. 3 Consequently, the role of social variables in the fostering of economic progress received much attention. The human development approach says that human beings are both ends in themselves and means of production. Human development is the enlargement of the range of choice and it is an end itself (Streeten, 1994).

Human Development

CHAPTER II
11

The single goal of the human development approach is to put people, ignored so far, back at the center of the development process with their involvement and participation in terms of economic debate, policy and advocacy. The goal is massive but simple; the aim is to assess the level of long-term well-being of the people and to bring about development of the people, by the people and for the people. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) initiated the process and first brought out a Human Development Report in 1990 in which the status of human development of a country/region was indicated4 . The UNDP has also urged individual nation states to bring out human development reports at the national level, across sub-regions within the country, for instance states in India, within the states across districts or sub-regions (i.e. cluster of districts based on specific criteria of homogeneity). Consequently, there are a number of countries, both developed and developing, that have prepared HDRs at the national levels5 . The Planning Commission of India prepared and published the first HDR of India in 2001 in which all the Indian states are ranked in the order of their achievement in terms of the indicators that reflect human development. Thereafter the Planning Commission has also been encouraging state governments to produce their own Human Development Reports. In fact, Madhya Pradesh was the first state in India to produce a HDR long before the Planning Commission. The other Indian states6 have come out with their state level reports, one by one. As mentioned before, the Andhra Pradesh Human Development Report (APHDR) is one of these state level human development reports. Against this background, this chapter compares the levels of human development across districts in Andhra
4 It, in fact, indicates the relative status of the country/region in question in the set of countries/regions.

Pradesh through simple composite indices such as human development index (HDI), human poverty index (HPI) and gender development and empowerment index (GDI and GEM).

2.2 Human Development Index

The human development index is a simple composite measure that gauges the overall status of a region in terms of three basic dimensions - long and healthy life, knowledge and decent standard of living - of human development. According to UNDP methodology, literacy rate, enrolment rate, life expectancy and per capita GNP are the representative indicators for these basic dimensions. AP in All-India Context The Planning Commission of India considered the following indicators for three dimensions of HDI in NHDR: literacy rate (7+ years of age) and adjusted intensity of formal education for education, life expectancy at age one and infant mortality rate (IMR) for health, and consumption expenditure (per capita per month) for command over resources (NHDR, 2001). According to NHDR 2001, the performance of Andhra Pradesh appears to be lagging among the 15 major Indian states (See Table 2.1). Though the state improved the level of human development over the period, its relative position slipped as the other backward states began to perform better, especially in the 1990s. The HDI value of AP increased from 0.298 in 1981 to 0.377 in 1991 and further to 0.416, but the rank of the state was 9 in 1981 and 1991 and 10 in 2001. The HDI value in the state has been consistently lower than the all-India average and the other south Indian states. When compared to BiMaRU7 states, the state was ahead in the 1980s but in the 1990s the state was lagging behind Rajasthan, which was one among the poorer states in India. Based on the analysis of development radar, the comment of NHDR on Andhra Pradesh was that on the whole, the attainment on the indicators seems reasonably balanced, though the attainment levels are less than half the norms for most indicators even in the early 1990s (NHDR, 2001: 16).
7

The UNDP supports the HDRs of nation states at many levels: funding, technical assistance, setting the methodology, publication etc. After National Human Development Report (NHDR) units were set up, it has developed a series of tools to contribute to excellence in sub-national, national and regional HDRs.
5

So far reports have been prepared by the states of Punjab, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Assam and Nagaland. Recently Uttar Pradesh and Tripura joined in the list.
6

The term refers to Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

12

Andhra Pradesh Human Development Report 2007

For APHDR we have estimated another HDI using the same indicators with slight changes. This revised HDI, as we term it, considers the following indicators: adult (15 + age) literacy rate and school attendance rate (of 514 age children) for education; life expectancy and infant survival rate (ISR) for health; and inequality adjusted per capita consumption expenditure for the economic dimension8 (See Technical Notes for details). Table 2.1: Human Development Index (HDI) across Major Indian States
Sno 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1981 Value Rank 2 3 4 Andhra Pradesh 0.298 9 Assam 0.272 10 Bihar 0.237 15 Gujarat 0.360 4 Haryana 0.360 5 Karnataka 0.346 6 Kerala 0.500 1 Madhya Pradesh 0.245 14 Maharashtra 0.363 3 Orissa 0.267 11 Punjab 0.411 2 Rajasthan 0.256 12 Tamil Nadu 0.343 7 Uttar Pradesh 0.255 13 West Bengal 0.305 8 India 0.302 States/UTs 1991 Value 5 0.377 0.348 0.308 0.431 0.443 0.412 0.591 0.328 0.452 0.345 0.475 0.347 0.466 0.314 0.404 0.381 2001 Rank Value Rank 6 7 8 9 0.416 10 10 0.386 14 15 0.367 15 6 0.479 6 5 0.509 5 7 0.478 7 1 0.638 1 13 0.394 12 4 0.523 4 12 0.404 11 2 0.537 2 11 0.424 9 3 0.531 3 14 0.388 13 8 0.472 8 0.472

lower than in the most backward states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. District Level HDI in Andhra Pradesh For this report the indicators used to construct a composite index at the district level are: per capita district domestic product (PCDDP) at constant (1993-94) prices representing the income dimension; adult literacy rate (15+ age population) and school attendance rate (6 to 14 age group) for the education dimension; and infant mortality rate (IMR) for the health dimension. Table 2.2: Revised HDI across Major States of India
Sno 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra States 2 Andhra Pradesh 1993-94 3 0.415 0.429 0.349 0.462 0.470 0.448 0.621 0.369 0.499 0.360 0.518 0.391 0.481 0.363 0.442 0.416 Index Ranking 2004-05 Change 1993-94 2004-05 4 0.503 0.509 0.441 0.535 0.558 0.526 0.673 0.452 0.570 0.453 0.588 0.463 0.586 0.476 0.533 0.544 5 21.2 18.6 26.3 15.7 18.9 17.5 8.3 22.5 14.3 25.6 13.4 18.4 22.0 31.2 20.6 20.6 6 10 9 16 6 5 7 1 13 3 15 2 12 4 14 8 7 10 10 16 7 5 9 1 15 4 14 2 13 3 12 8

10 Orissa 11 Punjab 12 Rajasthan 13 Tamil Nadu 14 Uttar Pradesh 15 West Bengal India
Note

Note : Rural and Urban Combined. Source : National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission of India.

The values of revised HDI are higher than those of the NHDR owing to the fact that there is a difference in methodology in terms of indicators chosen and the time points. Thus the revised HDI and the NHDR are strictly not comparable. But the relative position in terms of ranking may be considered where both the NHDR and revised HDI ranking for Andhra Pradesh indicate the same position (See Table 2.2). The HDI value of Andhra Pradesh was lower than the all-India average. The percentage change between two points in A.P. is higher than in all-India but
8

: 1. Change is percentage change over the initial point of time (1993-94); 2. Rural and urban combined; 3. Newly created states are merged with their former states using share of population as weight. Source : Computed, see Technical note for details.

The data sources are RGI (life expectancy) NSSO (literacy, school attendance and consumption expenditure), NFHS (IMR).

The Human Development Index (HDI) at the district level is constructed for the early 1990s and the early years of this decade. The two periods for education and health indicators relate to 1991 and 2001 respectively, while per capita income at the district level refers to 1993-94 and 2003-04 respectively (See Technical Note giving the methodology for constructing the human development

Human Development

13

indices). We refer to the early 1990s as period I and early years of this decade as period II. There are significant inter-district disparities in the index values. The values across districts vary from 0.717 in Hyderabad to 0.397 in Mahaboobnagar in period II (See Table 2.3). A comparison of levels in the early years of this decade (period II) shows that 11 districts had lower levels of human development as compared to the index value for the state of 0.537 (Table 2.3). Out of these, five districts (Warangal, Nizamabad, Adilabad, Nalgonda and

Mahabubnagar) are in Telangana, three (Kadapa, Kurnool, Anantapur) in Rayalaseema and three (Srikakulam, Vizianagaram and Prakasam) in North and South Coastal Andhra. In most districts of South Coastal Andhra the index of human development was higher than the state average. In Telangana, districts like Hyderabad, Rangareddy, Karimnagar, Khammam and Medak had higher levels of human development than the state average.

Table 2.3: Human Development Index and Ranking of Districts (Period I: Early 1990s and Period II: Early years of this decade)
Table 2.3a: Human Development Index and Rank Index Value Rank Period I Period II Period I Period II 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Srikakulam 0.269 0.453 21 21 2 Vizianagaram 0.236 0.402 23 22 3 Visakhapatnam 0.383 0.553 15 11 4 East Godavari 0.411 0.586 11 6 5 West Godavari 0.448 0.607 7 4 6 Krishna 0.510 0.623 2 2 7 Guntur 0.490 0.599 3 5 8 Prakasam 0.409 0.532 12 14 9 Nellore 0.452 0.565 4 8 10 Chittoor 0.451 0.558 6 10 11 Kadapa 0.447 0.536 9 13 12 Anantapur 0.343 0.458 19 20 13 Kurnool 0.327 0.473 20 19 14 Mahabubnagar 0.249 0.397 22 23 15 Ranga Reddy 0.452 0.610 5 3 16 Hyderabad 0.591 0.717 1 1 17 Medak 0.385 0.550 13 12 18 Nizamabad 0.383 0.504 14 16 19 Adilabad 0.361 0.488 16 17 20 Karimnagar 0.448 0.573 8 7 21 Warangal 0.349 0.514 18 15 22 Khammam 0.420 0.559 10 9 23 Nalgonda 0.360 0.481 17 18 Andhra Pradesh 0.402 0.537 CV 20.98 13.89 Sno Districts
Note : CV Coefficient of Variation.

Table 2.3b: Districts Arranged by Rank Rank 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Period I District 2 Hyderabad Krishna Guntur Nellore Ranga Reddy Chittoor West Godavari Karimnagar Kadapah Khammam East Godavari Prakasam Andhra Pradesh Medak Nizamabad Visakhapatnam Adilabad Nalgonda Warangal Anantapur Kurnool Srikakulam Mahabubnagar Vizianagaram Rank 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Period II District 4 Hyderabad Krishna Ranga Reddy West Godavari Guntur East Godavari Karimnagar Nellore Khammam Chittoor Visakhapatnam Medak Andhra Pradesh Kadapa Prakasam Warangal Nizamabad Adilabad Nalgonda Kurnool Anantapur Srikakulam Vizianagaram Mahabubnagar

Source : 1. Computed using Economic Survey of Andhra Pradesh 2005-06 for Per Capita District Income; Census data for Adult Literacy and School Attendance; and Irudaya Rajans Study for Infant Mortality Rates.

14

Andhra Pradesh Human Development Report 2007

Over time, the index values of human development for A.P. increased from 0.402 in period I to 0.537 in period II (Table 2.3). The index value has improved for all the districts but the rate of improvement varies from district to district. The ranks have improved significantly for Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari and Warangal in period II as compared to period I. On the other hand, the ranks of Nellore, Chittoor and Kadapa have declined. The rate of change in HDI values during 1991-2001 was higher in those districts which had lower HDI levels in 1991 (see Figure 2.1 & 2.2). This indicates that the backward districts improved more than the relatively better developed districts in the state. Therefore, there is some convergence of districts in terms of HDI. The co-efficient of variation (i.e., measure of inequality) shows that it declined from 20 per cent in period I to 14 per cent in period II indicates decline in regional disparities in human development across districts of Andhra Pradesh.
Figure 2.1: Rate (%) of Change during 1991-2001 in HDI
Vizianagaram Srikakulam Mahabubnagar Warangal Kurnool Visakhapatnam Medak East Godavari West Godavari Adilabad Ranga Reddy Nalgonda AP State Anantapur Khammam Nizamabad Prakasam Karimnagar Nellore Chittoor Guntur Krishna Hyderabad Kadapa 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Figure 2.2: HDI in 1991 and Change During 1991-2001 across Districts of Andhra Pradesh
Change during Period I and II

78.0 68.0 58.0 48.0 38.0 28.0 18.0 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600

HDI in Period I

education is higher than for per capita income in West Godavari, Krishna, Nellore, Chittoor, Kadapa and Nalgonda. Similarly, the rank for health is higher than the rank for income in Krishna, Guntur, Kadapa, Nizamabad and Karimnagar. It is clear that apart from looking at aggregate HDI the components of the index have to be examined in order to have more effective policies.

2.3 Human Poverty Index

While the HDI measures the overall progress in achieving human development, the HPI measures the distribution of progress through the level of deprivation. The broad dimension by which this deprivation is measured is the same as those of HDI health, knowledge and standard of living but there is a slight variation in the indicators. Moreover the level of deprivation is the yardstick for measurement while achievement levels are considered for HDI. Therefore, the indicators taken are as follows: adult illiteracy rate and percentage of children (6-14 age) not attending school for education; infant mortality rate for health; and percentage of household not having access to basic amenities like drinking water, housing, sanitation, cooking fuel and electricity for command over resources (see Technical Note for details in the Appendix). The human poverty index is constructed for two points of time - 1991 and 2001 - to trace the decline in the level of deprivation. It indicates that between 1991 and 2001 the deprivation levels were brought down across all the districts. Importantly, the rate of decline during 1991-2001 in the level of deprivation was higher in those districts where levels of deprivation were relatively higher

The components of human development index show that there is no correlation between income and health / education for some of the districts. The rank in terms of per capita income is much higher than the rank for education and health for three districts viz, Visakhapatnam, Medak and Khammam. On the other hand, the rank for

Human Development

15

Table 2.4 : Human Poverty Index (HPI) across Districts of Andhra Pradesh
Sno 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 District 2 Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittoor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddy Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda CV 1991 3 0.729 0.766 0.620 0.587 0.548 0.518 0.561 0.630 0.592 0.570 0.575 0.636 0.648 0.712 0.494 0.233 0.620 0.592 0.650 0.575 0.615 0.604 0.619 17.0 HPI 2001 % Change 4 5 0.566 0.597 0.504 0.465 0.449 0.399 0.428 0.494 0.466 0.461 0.451 0.515 0.494 0.592 0.369 0.213 0.498 0.470 0.514 0.452 0.492 0.500 0.513 0.469 16.5 22.4 22.0 18.7 20.8 18.2 22.9 23.7 21.5 22.1 19.1 21.6 19.1 23.7 16.9 25.3 8.3 19.7 20.6 20.9 21.4 20.0 17.2 17.1 19.5 16.9 1991 6 22 23 15 9 4 3 5 17 10 6 7 18 19 21 2 1 16 11 20 8 13 12 14

in 1991. But Mahabubnagar was an exception and this was one backward Rank district with the lowest rate of change 2001 Change during the period.
7 8 21 23 17 9 5 3 4 13 10 8 6 20 14 22 2 1 15 11 19 7 12 16 18 5 6 18 12 19 4 2 8 10 16 7 17 3 22 1 23 15 13 11 9 14 20 21

However, the relative position of many districts did not change. The three most backward districts and relatively the most deprived ones were Vizianagaram, Srikakulam and Mahabubnagar. Hyderabad, Ranga reddy, Krishna and Guntur were districts that were the least deprived. The value of coefficient of variation (CV) indicates that there was a slight reduction in regional variation across districts in terms of deprivation during 1991-2001.

2.4 Gender Development (GDI) and Empowerment Measure Index (GEMI)

The gender-related development index (GDI) is the third important index in the series used by the UNDP. It measures achievements in the same dimension and uses the same variables as the HDI does, but takes into account the inequality in achievement between women and men. The greater the gender disparity in basic human development, the lower is the GDI of a region when compared with its HDI.

Andhra Pradesh 0.583

Note : CV Coefficient of Variation. Source : Computed, see Technical note for details.

The UNDP also introduced another indicator i.e. Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) which indicates whether women are able to participate actively in economic and political life. It measures gender inequality in key areas of economic and political participation and decisionmaking. The GEM, in theory, focuses on womens opportunities in economic and political arenas and in this it differs from the GDI. However, for this report the GEM index is constructed using three additional indicators to those of GDI. These three additional indicators are: percentage of women representatives elected in local body elections, rate of violence against women and sex ratio of children (CSR).

16

Andhra Pradesh Human Development Report 2007

For the APHDR, the GDI is constructed for two points of time i.e. 1991 and 2001, but the GEMI is limited to one point of time (i.e. 2001) because of data constraints.

Table 2.5: Gender Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure Index (GEMI), Andhra Pradesh Sno District Gender Development Index (GDI) GEMI Index Value % Rank Index Rank 1991 2001 Change 1991 2001 Change 2001 2001 3 4 5 6 21 22 20 9 5 2 4 12 6 8 11 18 19 23 1 3 10 16 15 7 14 13 17 7 21 22 10 12 3 5 6 13 11 9 15 19 20 23 2 1 8 14 18 7 16 4 17 8 14 11 1 12 7 18 17 8 21 10 22 19 23 3 13 5 4 6 20 9 15 2 16 9 0.608 0.603 0.609 0.655 0.651 0.659 0.646 0.637 0.625 0.648 0.618 0.604 0.590 0.546 0.641 0.606 0.645 0.616 0.597 0.607 0.584 0.631 0.585 0.618 10 14 18 13 2 3 1 5 8 10 4 11 17 20 23 7 16 6 12 19 15 22 9 21

An analysis of gender 1 Srikakulam 0.478 0.526 10.0 related indices, especially 2 Vizianagaram 0.465 0.518 11.4 GDI, shows that gender 3 Visakhapatnam 0.513 0.643 25.3 adjusted human develop4 East Godavari 0.569 0.633 11.2 ment improved across 5 West Godavari 0.601 0.675 12.3 6 Krishna 0.608 0.657 8.1 districts during 1991-2001. 7 Guntur 0.602 0.656 9.0 However, the rate of change 8 Prakasam 0.555 0.623 12.3 in GDI varied across districts 9 Nellore 0.595 0.633 6.4 during the period. Though 10 Chittoor 0.577 0.643 11.4 a backward district like 11 Kadapa 0.561 0.588 4.8 Mahabubnagar experie12 Anantapur 0.522 0.559 7.1 nced a relatively better rate 13 Kurnool 0.517 0.540 4.4 of change during the period, 14 Mahabubnagar 0.427 0.493 15.5 its relative position 15 Rangareddy 0.615 0.678 10.2 remained as it was. In three 16 Hyderabad 0.606 0.692 14.2 Rayalaseema districts 17 Medak 0.562 0.648 15.3 (Kurnool, Kadapa and 18 Nizamabad 0.524 0.594 13.4 Anantapur) the rate of 19 Adilabad 0.526 0.563 7.0 change was the lowest and 20 Karimnagar 0.581 0.648 11.5 hence their relative positions 21 Warangal 0.528 0.580 9.8 were worse in 2001 when 22 Khammam 0.548 0.665 21.4 compared to 1991. The 23 Nalgonda 0.523 0.571 9.2 experience in GDI across Andhra Pradesh 0.553 0.620 12.1 districts is quite different CV 9.015 9.33 41.15 when compared to HDI in which the most backward Note : CV Coefficient of Variation. Source : Computed, see Technical note for details. districts showed greater improvement. More-over, unlike HDI, regional deparities remained almost same between 1991 and 2001 as shown by the stagnant coefficient variation (see Table 2.4). In terms of gender empowerment measure index9 (GEMI), the district with the best record was Krishna, followed by West and East Godavari Chittoor and Guntur. Many of these districts are located in South Coastal Andhra
9

This index indicates that the relative disadvantage for women is lower when the value of index is higher and vice versa. Women, in general, are disadvantaged when compared to men so that one can compare the relative level of disadvantage for women across districts.

Human Development

17

region. The GEM index indicates that women living in these districts are relatively better in terms of empowerment. Mahabub-nagar followed by Warangal, Nalgonda, Kurnool and Adilabad were the districts which were relatively

more backward in terms of GEM. Incidentally, many of these districts are located in Telangana region. It is worth noting that Hyderabad district which had the best values in HDI, HPI and GDI was ranked only 16th among 23 districts in GEMI, indicating that it is one of the districts where women are at greater disadvantage. The disadvantage for women in Hyderabad district is influenced by the high violence rate against women and low child sex ratio. This indicates that though the process of urbanization has a positive impact on overall human development, it has its own disadvantages in terms of the well-being of women.

2.5. Conclusion
Two major conclusions can be drawn from the analysis in this chapter. One is that there has been significant improvement in human development of Andhra Pradesh. But the relative performance of the state remained stagnant as shown by its ranking in human development across states. Second, there seems to be some convergence across districts in human development in Andhra Pradesh, indicating that the more backward districts are catching up with the developed districts. On the other hand, regional disparities have not changed much for human poverty index and gender development index.

18

Andhra Pradesh Human Development Report 2007